Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T04:11:50.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discovery, Symbolic Annexation and Virtual Effectiveness in International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Friedrich August Freiherr Von Der Heydte
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are some problems of international law which at times are felt to be in the air. Today without doubt one of these questions is that of original acquisition of territorial sovereignty. Arbitration cases such as those concerning the Island of Palmas and Greenland started a heated discussion of the principles involved in the field of scientific research.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , July 1935 , pp. 448 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Furthermore, the question of original acquisition of territorial sovereignty plays a large part in the actual quarrel between Paraguay and Bolivia concerning sovereignty in the Gran Chaco territory. The contradiction between both the theory of the uti possidetis de jure and that of the uti possidetis de facto which is at the bottom of this conflict, may be indeed regarded as being in its last theoretic fundamentals based on the old controversy between opinions which admit both symbolic annexation and mere virtual effectiveness to be, at least in certain cases, a sufficient sovereign title, and views which recognize effective occupation in the strictest sense to be in every case the only sufficient title to territorial sovereignty.

2 Kiefé, “L'dlMgeance,” in La Nationalité, edited by the Institut de Droit Comparé de l’Université de Paris, 1933, p. 57.

3 Cf. Aegidius Colonna, Tractatus quomodo reges et principes possunt possessiones et bona regni peculiaria ecclesiis elargiri, Opera, Vol. I (1555), fol. 37: “Goods which are within the kingdom are incapable of being so much removed from the king's power that this power does not owe them protection and the goods do not owe obedience to the king's power in the case of need … , because the community of a kingdom exists for the sake of protection and defence… . If something within the kingdom ceases to be under the king's actual protection, there is nothing to be said other than that the object in question ceases to be within the kingdom and to take part in the community of the same… . But as long as the goods are under the actual protection of the kingdom, they must not be considered as separated from it.” Cf. also William Occam, Dialogus, III, 2, 2, 5, in Goldast, Monorchia Sacri Romani Imperii, Vol. II (1613), p. 905: “The lord is bound by the same loyalty to his subject as the subject is to the lord: And if he does not display it, he is deprived of his lordship which he previously had over the subject.” More examples of this are easily to be found.

4 Bartolus, Comm. in Infort., I, D. 27, 1, 6, in Woolf, Bartolus of Sassoferrato (1913), p. 109.

5 Bonaini, Acta Henrici VII (1877), Vol. I, p. 205.

6 Sitzungsberichte der k. u. k. Akademie der Wissenschaften (1877), Vol. 88, p. 663. Cf. also John Faber: “The Emperor is not made a ruler outside the boundaries within which he is actually obeyed … and just as little is another king or lord.“

7 Bartolus, Comm. in Cod., I, C. 2, 3, 28; in Woolf, op. cit., p. 135. Cf. also Albericus de Eosciate, Comment, in primam partem Codicis (1586), p. 7

8 Bartolus, Consilia, Quaestiones el Tractatus (1547), p. 137.

9 Migne, Patrologia latina, Vol. CC (1855), p. 1237.

10 Mainardi, Bullarum ampl. Collectio, Vol. Ill (1743), p. 70ff.

11 da Silva, Corpo Diplomatico Portuguez, Vol. I, p. 91.

12 Fuglsang, Der Streit um die Insel Palmas (1931), p. 83.

13 Bartolus, Coram, in Dig. Vet., II, D. 19, 1, 57, in Woolf, op. cit, p. 73.

14 Goebel, The struggle for the Falkland Islands (1927), p. 96.

15 Tilby, The American Colonies, 1583-1763 (1911), p. 15.

16 Hyde, Treatise on International Law (1922), Vol. I, p. 163.

17 Goebel, op. cit., p. 91.

18 Fuglsang, op. cit., p. 81.

19 Goebel, op. cit., p. 88.

20 Ibid., p. 90.

21 Hyde, op. cit., p. 163.

22 Bleiber, Entdeckung als Rechtstitel fur den Gebietserwerb (1933), p. 68

23 Tilby, op. tit., p. 27.

24 Tilby, op. tit, p. 52.

25 Goebel, op. tit., p. 58.

26 Adair, The Exterritoriality of Ambassadors in the 16th and 17th Centuries (1929), p. 3.

27 Bleiber, op. cit., p . 17.

28 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 67.

29 Davenport, European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States, Vol. I (1917), p. 192.

30 Davenport, op. cit., p. 147.

31 Davenport, op. cit., p. 2.

32 Davenport, op. cit., p. 220.

33 Goebel, op. cit., p. 63.

34 Davenport, op. (At., p . 5.

35 Hyde, op. cit., p. 164.

36 Davenport, op. cit., p. 247.

37 Goebel, op. cit., p. Ill ff.

38 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 69.

39 Jose, History of Australasia (1909), passim.

40 Gryphiander, Tractatus de Insults (1623), p. 268.

41 Grotius, Mare Liberum (New York, 1916), p. 11.

42 Vattel, Le Droit des Gens (Washington, 1916), p. 196.

43 Cf. Bleiber, op. cit., p. 64.

44 Fuglsang, op. cit., p. 95 ff.

45 Verdross, “Règies générales du droit international de la paix,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours, 1930, p. 99.

46 Smedal, De l’ acquisition de souveraineté … (1932), p. 51.

47 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 91 ff.

48 Bleiber, op. (At., p. 91; cf. Smedal, op. cit., p. 75 ff

49 Rabot, “L'lle Bouvet,” in La Nature (Paris, 1928), p. 387 ff.

50 Lapradelle-Politis, Recueil des Arbitrages Internationaux, Vol. II (1924), p. 412 ff.

51 Arbitration in the Island of Palmas Case, p. 18.

52 Arbitration in the Greenland Case, p. 46; cf. Smedal, op. cit., p. 51.

53 Goebel, op. cit., p. 106. 53a Arbitration, p. 40.

54 Cf. Smedal, op. cit., pp. 52 and 54: “capable d'y exercer un contrôle effectif.“

55 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 77.

56 Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations (1898), Vol. 5, p. 4984.

57 Moore, op. cit., p. 5043.

58 Arbitration, p. 40.

59 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 68.

60 Franz, Die Kolonisation des Mississippitales (1906), passim.

61 Bartolus, Consilia, Tractatus el Quaestiones (1547), p. 137

62 Lawrence, Principles of International Law (5th ed., 1925), p. 152.

63 Ferguson, Manual of International Law (1884), Vol. I, p. 100.

64 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 70.

65 Goebel, op. cit, p. 109. We may quote Bartolus’ above-mentioned treatise on islands (Consilia, Quaesiiones et Tractatus, p. 137) as follows: “Islands which are situated in the near proximity of the continent, are considered as belonging to this continent… . But if an island lies in the middle of the Ocean, the question is whether it can be regarded as being in the neighbourhood of another island,” or the famous code of law of the Spanish king Alfonso the Wise, known as Las Siete Partidas, drawn up about 1265 (Vol. II, Madrid, 1807, p. 721), which clearly distinguishes between property and sovereignty: “It seldom occurs that new islands arise out of the sea. But if it should happen that a new island arises, we state that it must belong, as property, to whomsoever would colonize it first. But he, or they, who colonize it, owe obedience to the lord within the dominion of which the new island arose.“

66 Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations (1898), Vol. 2, p. 1919.

67 Lapradelle-Politis, op. cit., p. 616.

68 Smedal, op. cit., pp. 67 and 91.

69 Hunter Miller, “Political Rights in the Arctic,” in Foreign Affairs (1925), Vol. 4, p. 56.

70 Smedal, op. cit., p. 70.

71 Bleiber, op. cit., p. 94 ff.

72 Smedal, op. cit., p. 92.